TALIB HUSSAIN vs THE STATE

ORDER

' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,407 of 2005, dated 1-10-2005, registered under sections 392, 395, 215, 216 and 109, P.P.C. At Police Station Mochiwala, District Jhang on the statement of Manzoor Hussain Khan, the complainant.

2. The brief facts of, the case as alleged in the F.I.R. Are that on 30-9-2005, the complainant along with Ch. Muhammad Ameen and Muhammad Nawaz P.Ws. Was going to Lahore from Bhakkar in a Car bearing Registration No,LRK-47 valuing Rs,9,00,000 and at about 6-45 in evening when they reached at Pathan Kot Chiniot Road within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Bhawana, a white coloured car without number plate crossed them from behind and intercepted them; that four persons armed with fire-arms alighted from the said car and boarded the complainant's car.

One of them replaced the complainant on the driver's seat and started to drive away the car to Chak No,232/J.B. That two of them with their fire-arms, rifle and pistol respectively, stood at guard of the complainant party, whereas the other two drove away the complainant's car; that two of them accused started personal search of the complainant and his companions and picked out of Rs,75,000 and two mobile phones from their pockets and at about 11-00 p.m. The accused freed them, while extending threat that if the complainant party needed the car, a sum of Rs,2,50,000 should be arranged without intimating the police and may contact on the Dhari of Umer Draz Baloch in Chak No,215/J.B. The complainant reached the said Dhari at about 10-00 a.m. On the next day, where Mst. Halima, Mst. Naseem Bibi and Iftikhar Ahmad, mother, sister and brother respectively of said Umar Draz met him, who were told the entire story of incident. They told the complainant to pay a sum of Rs,2,50,000 and car in question would be delivered to him at about 5- 00 p.m. On the same day. Subsequently, the complainant along with his relatives went to the Dhari of co-accused Umar Draz, where he paid a sum of Rs,50,000 to Mst. Halima Bibi, etc. And told them that he would pay the remaining money after restoration of said car to him. Mst. Halima Bibi gave the said money to Mst. Naseem Bibi and asked the complainant to first bring the remaining amount, and then car in question would be returned to him. Hence, the F . I. R.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was forcibly involved in the present case through the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 17-10- 2005 by the police; that the petitioner is police constable and has been falsely implicated in this case being close relative of said Umer Draz, who was fugitive from justice and has been murdered in a police encounter on 15-11-2005; that during the investigation, the petitioner has been found innocent by the police and said complainant has also exonerated him through an application.

D.S.P. Investigation has also conducted the inquiry and found the petitioner innocent; that the petitioner is not involved previously in such-like cases, therefore, he may be released on bail.

4. The learned State counsel has opposed this bail petition on the ground that in the supplementary statement specific role has been ascribed to the present petitioner and he while misusing his authority being police constable in connivance with other co-accused Umar Draz, etc. Had committed the offence and case falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.

6. The complainant had no enmity or grudge against the petitioner to falsely implicate him in the present case and due to the reasons narrated in supplementary statement by the complainant recorded by the police on 17-10-2005, the petitioner was named in the case with specific role. The complainant was told by Umar Draz co-accused to delete the name of his mother and sister from the case as well as arrange of Rs,1,50,000 and then car would be returned to him. He was also directed to approach Ameer Hamza co-accused and Talib Hussain, present petitioner, who will park the said car at petrol pump after receiving the remaining amount. According to the complainant, he along with Muhammad Ameen and Muhammad Nawaz P.Ws. Went to the house of Talib Hussain, petitioner and Ameer Hamza co-accused where Talib Hussain, present petitioner had promised that if the complainant would exonerate the mother and sister of Umar Draz, main accused and arrange the remaining amount, the vehicle in question would be handed over to him.

Subsequently, when the complainant had arranged the remaining amount, Talib Hussain petitioner resiled from his promise. The Complainant came to know that Talib Hussain petitioner and co- accused Ameer Hamza and Baqar Shah were police constables, who along with Hayat Chuchkana were involved in the present case being member of gang of Umar Draz main accused. No enmity has been alleged on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the aforesaid accused persons in the present case. On the other hand, record shows that undated application was submitted on behalf of the complainant for exonerating the petitioner and other police constables, which shows mala fide on the part of Investigating Officers. Prima facie, there is sufficient material and evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The offences fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And I do not find any reason to grant bail to the present petitioner, which is dismissed.

7. Before parting with this order, the D.P.O. Jhang, is directed to call for record of present case and investigate the matter personally that whether the police was connived with the petitioner or not and if it is found that the investigation had not been conducted properly and in accordance with law, he shall take necessary action against the Investigating Officer concerned and the D.S.P.

(Investigation) as well. The report thereof shall be sent to this Court through the Deputy Registrar (J.) of this Court within one month.